Study the faith

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 20, 2022

Gregory XVIII: Yet another means of deceiving the elect

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 17, 2014

© Copyright 2014, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

It is not surprising that generations raised on fairy tales might believe the Siri pope and his successor theory, but as St. Paul tells us, men put away the things of children when they mature. Obviously not, as the gullible souls willing to swallow the Siri theory demonstrate. There are numerous reasons for casting this foolish fable aside, namely because it is not and could never be Catholic. Having remained a practicing and functioning member for the Vatican 2 church long after the false council; having signed Vatican 2 council documents and celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae, this man, who never even exhibited any real sympathy for Traditionalists, presented as a heretic and schismatic.

Under Can. 2200 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law he would at least have been classified as deviating from the faith, a phrase found in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, on which this law is based. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he must be treated as a heretic/schismatic, unless and until, at some future date, a true pope decides his case. This would also automatically disqualify any alleged successor issuing from him. One cannot use a probable opinion concerning validity in determining questions involving the means for eternal salvation; this is the teaching of Bl. Pope Innocent XI, (DZ 1151).

Traditionalist “clergy” trade on providing all the means necessary to salvation, yet have failed to emphasize the fact that the first of these is subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Siri promoters are using this necessity to lure followers to their cause. The proof of this teaching is found in the following: “We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff,” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, DZ 469). To be subject to anyone, one must be certain he has the right to command and compel to obey. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote concerning the bishops: “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter…”

For as Rev. E. S. Berry who provided this quote states, “an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect.”  The evidence proving the existence of grave doubt and canonical impossibility in this case was long ago presented and recently updated. It can be studied at: /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/errors-in-matters-of-faith-and-morals/why-guiseppe-siri-was-never-pope/, also at /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/

Most of the witnesses in this case are dead and reliable testimony is unavailable, only deepening the doubt in this situation. And yet already the Siri enthusiasts are running to accept yet another antipope in a long line of pretenders to the papal throne. But before they jump recklessly from the frying pan into the fire, perhaps a few words of caution from someone who has “been there” could make them rethink their position.

Necessity of canonical election and doubtful popes

As Rev. Berry states elsewhere in his work quoted above (The Church of Christ, 1910), once it appears the apostolic succession has been lost, it can only be regained “by a direct intervention from Christ.” And here Berry, joining others, admits that the Church could come to a pass where only a miracle would save Her. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in his De Concilio (ii, 19), “a doubtful pope is no pope” and no one is bound to obey him; he should be forced to resign. I once believed and stated that we should not wait for miracles, but should proceed to a papal election; at that time I thought I had found evidence indicating that the laity could elect a pope. A man we believed was able (barely) to be elected pope was actually elected, but this became a very trying situation when we realized that he was totally incapable of functioning as any kind of head for the Church and was never absolved from heresy pre-election. Later it was discovered that the laity are strictly forbidden to take any part whatsoever in papal elections and are excommunicated for doing so, and all who had participated in that election save one renounced the so-called “pope.”

This Siri successor situation is more dangerous because people have been led to believe, based on almost thin air, that a man who was never proven to have become a canonically elected pope was actually elected. And the intimation here is that he is the only one who could be considered a true pope because he descends from Pope Pius XII lineally. But NO PAPAL ELECTION is valid unless it is canonical and this is to be held as dogma, Msgr. J. C. Fenton says in his The Concept of Sacred Theology. That is, unless it conforms to all those norms laid down for validity by Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and canon law itself, it cannot be counted as a true election. Canon 147 clearly states that those electing or appointing anyone to office must truly be considered competent to do so, and this includes the cardinals who are to designate the man destined to receive Divine jurisdiction from Christ Himself. Do the feckless Traditionalists who hold that Siri was actually elected, based on no proof whatsoever, really believe that those cardinals who elected Siri were competent when they went on to recognize the Novus Ordo antipopes, participate in Vatican 2 and celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae? Do they not understand that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio condemns them as heretics prior to such an election, nullifying and voiding all their actions, if it later becomes apparent that they have held such heresies? No of course not; for having never been obedient to canon law to begin with, and Pope Pius XII tells us in his infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis that anyone claiming the name Catholic MUST obey such laws, they see no need to be obedient now.

Use of coercive tactics to retain supporters

Siri theorists, incapable of conducting their own research, have even been so bold as to selectively use the research developed on this site for decades to support their evil claims. They have been doing this since 1989, when they first realized they could not claim Siri was elected in 1963 after this author proved (in a series of articles and later a self-published book) that John 23 was a heretic, so was never validly elected; nor could the cardinals proceed to elect another “pope.”  But they are not presenting the whole story for those they are so cunningly attempting to mislead, because they are not following Canon Law as members of Christ’s Church are infallibly bound to do. Nor have they followed the scholastic method of St. Thomas Aquinas to present their proofs as the Church commands and therefore cannot be considered as ever presenting such proofs. Just as we were led to believe by the later pope-elect when promoting the election, the Siri successor promoters dangle as a carrot on a stick the promise to absolve from censures and provide jurisdiction, when this is a canonical impossibility. This is a cult tactic known as coercive persuasion, or as Pope Pius XII defines it in Ad Apostolorum Principis, “psychic persuasion,” as developed by the Chinese communists. It is a shameful attempt to gather moral and financial support for a mere theory presented as an accepted truth, according to popular opinion based on out and out fabrications.

This neglect of approved sources and true scholarship that contradicts the reasoning which leads to such fabrications was soundly condemned by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical, Humani Generis:

“17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.”

It is sheer absurdity to maintain that those who will not even follow the dictates of the continual magisterium throughout the ages and have defied all its principles and teachings to date could possibly determine that they May accept a man as pope while continuing to ignore these same binding principles. What binding papal teachings, also those produced by the theologians mentioned above have these clueless lay leaders promoting this travesty based their reasoning upon? What popes, what councils, what laws have they cited that grounds their belief that such a thing could ever happen outside the teachings of the Church Christ established on earth?!  The new philosophy they teach is that of the pre-eminence of human reason over the teachings of the Church; human determinations and “catholic sense” as opposed to scholastic theology. This has already been discussed in the second of the articles linked to betrayedcatholics website above. It is the undiluted Traditionalism of Augustine Bonnetty condemned by Pope Pius IX as a heresy in his “Qui pluribus,” (DZ 1649-52; the doctrines listed in Denzingers state the true teaching of the Church, as opposed to the false teaching spread by Bonnetty).

First of all it must be noted that no one can coerce Catholics into accepting such a doubtful man as pope by threatening them with the teaching that all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved, that in order for the Church’s indefectibility to remain intact a true pope must exist and/or that such a pontiff is necessary to remove censures of excommunication. As Rev. Berry teaches per St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching above: a doubtful pope is no pope. According to the opinions of seven different theologians, fulfilling the requirements of Can. 20 and the moral prerequisites for establishing true probability, “There is no schism involved…if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J, Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Of course one would need to offer valid reasons for such doubts, reasons provided elsewhere by this author, and they are readily available in this instance. Notice that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is a heretic or invalidly elected, (Can. 2200, taken from the old law, Cum ex…). Only doubt, NOT CERTITUDE that such a man is not pope, is required. In order to act in such a case, i.e., accept such a man as a true pope, moral theologians state, all doubts must be completely resolved, something that is impossible in this particular situation. Conclaves by their very nature are secret, and those participating in this conclave later proved themselves heretics. No reliable testimony could ever issue from such an event. Catholics do not need to worry that by not accepting such “popes,” they will endanger their souls, for the Church cannot and does not teach this, as demonstrated above.

Proofs to this effect can be found under Current Articles — The Binding Power of the Papacy Voids Traditionalist Acts — and will explain the true nature of indefectibility from Catholic teaching and the absolute necessity of certainly verified canonical election. Please also see the articles refuting attacks on the infallibility of Cum ex… as well as “The Truth About Papal Claims.” And for any who are in doubt about the Church’s views considering those who accept an antipope, please read the scathing condemnations of the Council of Florence:

The Council of Florence

The Council of Florence was held in Florence, Italy from 1438-1447. The Council was a continuation of the Council of Ferrara, and that council in turn was a continuation of the Council of Basel, in Switzerland. It was convoked in 1431 by Pope Martin V. Following Martin’s death, his successor Blessed Pope EugeneIV opened it and met open resistance from many of the bishops. Therefore he dissolved the Council, moving to Ferrara, Italy in 1438 because of the schismatic bishops who elected the antipope Felix V. Felix attempted to depose Eugene IV. While it appears he was a layman on election, the Catholic Encyclopedia says only that he was consecrated following his election in 1439. He then was excommunicated by Bd. Eugene IV.  In 1439 the bubonic plague forced the entire Council to move again, this time to Florence where it was closed eight years later in 1447 by Eugene IV. The following text is taken from the ninth session of the Council of Florence which condemned in session the antipope Felix V and demanded he cease and desist from all pretensions to the papacy.

https://www.dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum10.htm

“…Say with the psalmist: I will pursue my enemies and crush them, and I shall not return until I consume them. I shall consume and crush them and they will not rise; they will fall at my feet. For it is wrong that so wicked a deed and so detestable a precedent should be allowed to pass by disguised, lest perhaps unpunished daring and malice find an imitator, but rather let the example of punished transgressions deter others from offending.

[Concerning Amadeus aka Felix V and his bishop friends]: “They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ’, and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself.

“The leader and prince of these men and the architect of the whole nefarious deed was that first-born son of Satan, the most unfortunate Amadeus, once duke and prince of Savoy. He meditated this scheme for long. Several years ago, as is widely said, he was seduced by the trickery, sooth sayings and phantoms of certain unfortunate men and women of low reputation (commonly called wizards or witches or Waldensians and said to be very numerous in his country), who had forsaken their Saviour to turn backwards to Satan and be deceived by demonic illusions, to have himself raised up to be a monstrous head in God’s church. He adopted the cloak of a hermit, or rather of a most false hypocrite, so that in sheep’s clothing, like a lamb he might assume the ferocity of a wolf. Eventually he joined the people at Basel. By force, fraud, bribery, promises and threats he prevailed on the majority of those at Basel, who were subject to his sway and tyranny, to proclaim him as an idol and Beelzebub, the prince of these new demons, in opposition to your holiness, the true vicar of Christ and the undoubted successor of Peter in God’s church.

“Thus that most ill-starred Amadeus, a man of insatiable and unheard of greed, whom avarice (which, according to the Apostle, is the service of idols) has always blinded, was set up as an idol and like a statue of Nebuchadnezzar in God’s church by that most wicked synagogue, those offscourings of forsaken men, that shameful cesspool of all Christianity, from among whom certain heinous men, or rather demons hiding under the form of men, had been deputed as electors or rather as profaners. He himself, agitated by the furies of his own crimes and sinking into the depth of all evils, said after the manner of Lucifer: I will set my throne in the north and I shall be like the most High. He grasped with avid and detestable greed at the above-mentioned election, or rather profanation made of him, which he had earlier sought with intense fever of mind and anguish of heart. He did not shrink from adopting and wearing papal robes, ornaments and insignia, from behaving, holding himself and acting as Roman and supreme pontiff, and from having himself venerated as such by the people. Further, he was not afraid to write and despatch to many parts of the world letters which were sealed with a leaden seal after the manner of the Roman pontiffs. By these letters, in which he calls himself Felix even though he is the most unhappy of mortals, he tries to spread the poisons of his faction among the people of Christ.

“With the approval and help of this sacred ecumenical council, avenge with condign penalties this new frenzy which has become inflamed to your injury and that of the holy Roman church, your spouse, and to the notorious scandal of the whole Christian people. By the authority of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and by your own authority, remove and separate from God’s holy church, by a perpetual anathema, the aforesaid wicked perpetrators of this prodigious crime and their unfortunate heresiarch and veritable antichrist in God’s church together with all their supporters, adherents and followers and especially his execrable electors or rather profaners.

“May he and all the aforesaid be cast out like an antichrist and an invader and a destroyer of the whole of Christianity. Let no appeal in this matter ever be allowed to him or to them. Let them and their posterity and successors be deprived without appeal of every ecclesiastical or secular rank and dignity whatsoever. Let all of them be condemned by a perpetual anathema and excommunication and may they be counted among the wicked who will not rise at the judgment. May they feel the anger of God against them. May they feel the rage of saints Peter and Paul, whose church they dare to throw into confusion, both in this life and in the next. May their dwelling be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents. May their children be orphans and their wives be widows. May the world fight against them and all the elements be opposed to them, so that they may be cast out, destroyed and eliminated by all and so that, as they grovel in permanent penury, death may deservedly be their refuge and life their punishment. May the merits of all the saints cast them into confusion and display open vengeance on them in their lifetime. May they receive a deserved fate with Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Finally, unless they repent from their hearts, perform deeds worthy of repentance and make worthy satisfaction to your holiness and the universal church for the enormity of their sins, may they be thrust with the wicked into the everlasting darkness, doomed by the just judgment of God to eternal torments…

“Therefore, in order that so enormous and execrable a deed may, with the help of God whose cause is at stake, be destroyed from its very roots, we are applying, in conjunction with this holy council and with the least possible delay, a remedy in accordance with the holy canons…Nevertheless we and this holy synod, imitating the mercy of God who desires not the death of the sinner but rather that he be converted and live, have decided to show all possible mercy and to act, in so far as we can, in such a way that the proposed mildness may recall them to heart and lead them to recoil from the above-mentioned excesses, and so that when at last they return to the bosom of the church like the prodigal son, we may receive them with kindness and embrace them with fatherly love…

“We exhort, beg and beseech the antichrist Amadeus and the aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and whoever else believes in, adheres to, receives or in any way supports him, straightaway to stop violating the church’s unity for which the Saviour prayed so earnestly to the Father, and to cease from rending and lacerating fraternal charity and peace …We strictly enjoin and order him and them in virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties of anathema, heresy, schism and treason which have been inflicted in any ways against such persons, whether by men or by the law:

“That within fifty days immediately following the publication of this letter, the antichrist Amadeus should cease from acting any more and designating himself as the Roman pontiff and should not, in so far as he can, allow himself to be held and called such by others, and should not dare hereafter in any way to use papal insignia and other things belonging in any way to the Roman pontiff; And that the aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and adherents, receivers and supporters should no longer, either in person or through others, directly or indirectly or under any pretext, aid, believe in, adhere to or support the said Amadeus in this crime of schism…

“If Amadeus and the said electors, believers, adherents, receivers and supporters shall act otherwise — though may it not be so — and do not effectively fulfill each and all of the aforesaid points within the appointed time, we wish and decree that from then as from now they automatically incur the stated penalties…,” (end of Council quote. All emphasis within quotes in this document is the author’s.)

“Exiled” and hidden popes treated as resigned

While it is true that the Apostolic See at present is not filled, and so such a man would not reign as opposed to a true pope, that man still would perfectly fit the definition of Antichrist found in the Catholic Encyclopedia: a king reigning during an interregnum. He also would fit the description given by Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex…,” a heretic raised to the See who only appears to be pope. The current papal election legislation by Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches: “We command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy.” The rights of the Apostolic See demand a canonical election of a truly worthy candidate. It cannot be proven that Siri’s election was canonical, posed as it was by heretics sanctioned under Cum ex…, who later amply demonstrated the extent of their treachery. Siri could scarcely be considered a worthy candidate, cooperating with the antichurch and acknowledging the usurpers of the Holy See at every turn. Proofs exist concerning this acknowledgement and cooperation, and no proofs exist confirming his orthodoxy.

Let Catholics remember that when headed by a true pope the Church is only visible if it can be identified as such. Even in the early centuries of the Church the faithful always knew who their pope and bishops were and even lived in hiding with them at times. In 1804, Pius VII signed an abdication of the papal throne prior to departing for Paris to crown Napoleon. The abdication was to take effect in the event that he was held captive in France. During World War II, Pius XII is reported to have signed a document stating that should he be abducted by the Nazis, he was to be considered as having resigned as pope. In the past, Pope St. Pontian was exiled and a new papal election held and this also happened to other popes. A secret reign of a pope for over 20 years has no precedent whatsoever in the Church. No better definition of doubt could be found than that of a supposed pope, named and kept in hiding, who cannot be verified as even existing!

If God wished us to have a pope at this time, He would miraculously provide us with one. This is the only way Catholics would know with any certainty that he was legitimate. But the real reason is that Siri himself proved to be a heretic/schismatic, so no true successor could ever issue from him. Those observing that sedevacantism is no longer a viable position are right insofar as those believing the See to be vacant cannot in the meantime set up their own church. But neither can people set up a false church by promoting a false pope, either.

Who is Peter Tran Van Khoat

Before receiving any lifting of censures or revalidation of marriages or whatever else may be offered by Gregory XVIII via Peter Tran Van Khoat, those making these requests should ask themselves:

• Who is Fr. Khoat? Where are his priestly credentials? Since he was affiliated with the Novus Ordo, Lefebvre, Giuffre and other Traditionalists, has HE been absolved of his censures and irregularities and how do we know this?

• Where is the proof of his ordination and jurisdiction? Consecration, if applicable? Or if not a bishop, extraordinary faculties to absolve from such censures which are always reserved to the Roman Pontiff, or at the very least a bishop designated by him.

• Khoat claims he was created whatever in 1988  (bishop, cardinal?) and his orders “regularized” by the “pope,” but where is the proof? Was this “pope” Siri, and is Khoat the successor? Siri died in 1989.

• What is required of the faithful before receiving absolution and abjuration? What is an abjuration and what should precede it — does anyone even know?

As has been pointed out in the article at /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/ , the first teaching of the Church Siri supporters deny is the insistence by numerous popes on the exclusive use of the scholastic system for weighing evidence and arriving at truth. It demonstrates the falsehoods manufactured today by those who spin endless scenarios to construct conspiracy theories, which is basically what the Siri theory amounts to. But a theory is not a fact, and Pope Pius XII actually forbids us to indulge in such “conjectural notions” and “unstable tenets” as noted above. No lay leaders primarily using prophecy as proof (which has no guarantee of infallibility or doctrinal weight of any kind); no shadowy middleman whose past is a series of unanswered questions; no unidentified, unnamed and questionably elected pope, whether Siri or his successor, can gainsay true popes or make it appear that those who reek of doubtful origin could ever be considered a true head of the Church.

Conclusion

Slowly but surely, those who consider themselves true Catholics are being absorbed by groups either prepared to accept the “papacy” of Francis, once he “converts,” (another absurdity and insult to the intellect propagated by those who preach the probability of a material/formal papacy); by means of reconciliation with the false church of Rome as has happened with the St. Pius X Society members or by allegiance to a series of false popes existing here and there, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope). Still others, we hear, have gone over to the Indult Mass from Traditionalism, thus returning to their vomit. Holy Scripture warns that false christs and wolves in sheep’s clothing will abound to deceive even the elect in the latter days, and they are definitely at work as these words are being written.

In his The Essentials of Formal Logic, the foundation of scholastic philosophy/theology, Rev. Michael J. Mahony, S. J., provides a list of what is known in philosophy as a fallacy of argument or a sophism — “a falsehood hidden under the appearance of truth.” Let that resonate for a moment, because it is the key to everything that Traditionalists have done for the past five decades. Under the heading of “Fallacies” in Ch. XI of his 1918 work, Mahoney lists the following under the subhead of false induction: “False observation, false interpretation, seeing what we wish to see, not seeing what we do not wish to see.” It isthe lying visions and operation of error spoken of by St. Paul. Beg our Lord for the grace to open your eyes, before you are led by these blind guides into the eternal abyss.

Siri theory a good example of Anti-Scholastic thinking

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 28, 2014

© Copyright 2014 T. Stanfill Benns
(This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Promoters of Genoa’s long-deceased Guiseppe Cardinal Siri say they are seeing renewed interest in their promotion of Siri’s election as pope (said to have occurred in 1958 and 1963) since Francis’ election, and are trying to use this migration to attract still more to their ranks. Of course the Siri theory, (which they boldly proclaim as Siri FACTS), has become far more elaborate since the cardinal’s death, and now to claim him pope they have necessarily had to produce a “successor.” In reality, all the Siri theory and its tormented history amounts to is a conspiracy theory web carefully woven to attract disenchanted Catholics, not willing to look too far for answers, into its sticky orb. Do serious Catholics have any business using conspiracy theories as the basis for their faith? Not if they really understand and appreciate what the Church is all about and possess that faith to begin with. The only “conspiracy theory” (so-called by Protestants) that a true Catholic can credit as indisputable is the fact that Freemasonry long ago set out to destroy the Church and governments worldwide. This we must accept firmly and irrevocably as the constant teaching of the Church, coming infallibly from numerous popes over the course of two centuries.

How does one test the credibility of any other conspiracy theory? The answer will amaze those reading this piece. One site (https://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html) calls these theories “logical fallacies” and identifies them with the same false arguments and methods of proof Scholastic philosophy enumerates! It truly boggles the mind. That the Siri theory fits the criteria for a conspiracy theory can be proven from what this article relates, because it corresponds to so many of the qualifying factors listed.  And based on the observations offered by former Siri “insiders,” living the life of a Siri supporter is not unlike membership in a secret society, where only certain privileged persons have access to the “truth,” and leaders bestow that truth only upon those who have proven themselves “worthy” of receiving it.  The Catholic Church has never cloaked the identity of Her pontiffs in secrecy; by necessity popes must be public figures known to the faithful and accepted by them as pope, not figures hidden from view and whispered about in Internet chat rooms and among the privileged few. Historically the Church replaced those in exile or captivity, therefore not able to reign publicly, with popes able to function as such in the public eye, and this even in times of grave hardship, war and invasion. What the Church has never done is warp her teaching to suit a specific suspected incident or popular theory not in line with Church teaching and practice, and this is precisely what Siri theorists have advocated since the 1980s.

The Catholic Church has only one method for determining the value of evidence, one way of gauging whether or not this or that actually took place and if it does indeed conform with Church law and teaching. It is called the Scholastic method and consists of two separate sciences — theology and philosophy. St. Thomas teaches that these sciences are indeed separate, “yet …they agree. They are distinct because…philosophy relies on reason alone, theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith which belong [only] to theology. They must agree because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that would contradict what He teaches in the supernatural order. The recognition of these principles is the crowning achievement of Scholasticism,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII). To claim someone uses Scholasticism in dealing with allegedly factual evidence while omitting the necessary theological proofs is to falsely assert that such facts are equal to the doctrinal evidence required and mandated by the Church Herself. It is a devious attempt to split theology from philosophy, when the two must agree. Truth IS one, while error is many. Those who pretend otherwise neither serve “veritas,” nor even understand the purpose for its existence.

As Rev. J. C. Fenton, a doctor in sacred theology who trained at the Angelicum in Rome wrote in the 1940s: “The principles from which theologians draw their conclusions are actually truths which have been revealed to the world by Jesus Christ our Lord…[Sacred theology] is a science which works toward the clear and unequivocal expression of the divine message…[It] is the work of explaining the content of that teaching which God has given the world through…our Lord, and which is proposed for belief of men by the infallible magisterium of the Church,” (Concepts of Sacred Theology). While it is true we are not theologians, it also is true that mere lay people have been forced to deal with situations normally dealt with only by the hierarchy and theologians expounding Catholic truth. We are not allowed to treat such subjects according to worldly standards; if we delve into them at all, we must do our best to assess them only from those standards used by the Church. Scholastic method assures these sacred subjects the dignity and reverence they deserve, unlike other methods. That no attempt at all has been made by the Siri crowd to observe these norms set down by the Church should alert those dealing with them that what they relate about this supposed event, the election of Cardinal Siri as pope, will never be certainly confirmed as true. But most importantly, as others measuring it by Catholic standards alone have proven, it does not suffice to present random facts as true. Those facts must prove that the laws and teachings of the Church regarding such matters are fully in agreement with the evidence and conclusions of those presenting them, and if not then such conclusions must miserably fail.

If one is truly a bona fide member of the Catholic Church, there is only one way to present the truths of faith; one way to examine and explain points of law and doctrinal matters in order to propagate the truths of faith. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who provided us with the means to present these truths, and Pope Leo XIII and other popes champion it here as the only method of demonstration to be used in defending the Catholic faith.

“The knowledge and exercise of this science of salvation have certainly always brought the very greatest help to the Church; whether it be for the right understanding and interpretation of Scripture, or for reading and expounding the Fathers with greater safety and profit, or for laying bare and answering different errors and heresies. This doctrine flows from the brimming fountain of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Supreme Pontiffs, and of Holy Fathers and Councils. Now indeed, in these last days, it is in the highest degree necessary to refute heresies and confirm the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. For now have come those dangerous times of which the Apostle speaks. Now men, blasphemous, proud, deceivers, go from bad to worse, wandering from the truth themselves and leading others into error…Scholastic Theology, [Pope Sixtus V] tells us, ‘has an apt coherence of facts and causes, connected with one another; an order and arrangement, like soldiers, drawn up in battle array; definitions and distinctions very lucid; unanswerableness of argument and acute disputations. By these the light is divided from the darkness, and truth from falsehood. The wiles of heretics, wrapped up in many wiles and fallacies, being stripped of their coverings, are bared and laid open.’ But these great and wondrous gifts can only be found in a right use of that philosophy which the masters of Scholasticism, of set purpose and with wise counsel, were everywhere accustomed to use even in their theological disputations…

“There are many, who with minds alienated from the Faith, hate all Catholic teaching, and say that reason alone is their teacher and guide. To heal these men of their unbelief, and to bring them to grace and the Catholic Faith, We think that nothing, after the supernatural help of God, can be more useful in these days than the solid doctrine of the fathers and the Scholastics. They teach firm foundations of Faith, its Divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments by which it is commended to men, the benefits that it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect harmony with reason. They teach all such truths with a weight of evidence and a force that may well persuade even minds unwilling and hostile in the highest degree.” (For additional papal proofs visit https://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart1.htm). What these saints, canonists and theologians have to say on the incapacity of a heretic to be elected, the necessity of a canonical election, the need to rule out any and all possibility of intrigue and excommunicable offense barring candidates from election, the absolute necessity of confirming the accepto, and many other details covered in Canon Law and papal documents is crucial to determining whether any election actually took place. These points have all been examined, and Cardinal Siri has been found woefully wanting.

The only conclusions that true and serious-minded Catholics can arrive at, then, is that if scholasticism was not used in the fashioning, promoting and marketing of this elusive “theory,” it is not worthy of belief. But then what thought system DID they employ; how did they come to their conclusions and what is the value of their proofs? In analyzing the method used in their presentation, it can be said that it most resembles pragmatism, (see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic), for it exhibits several of the points identified in this article. These are presented below.

• An unproved hypothesis or hypothetical cause, if it explains the facts observed, fulfills the same purpose and serves the same ends as a true cause or established law…

This is a perfect explanation of the entire presentation of the “Siri thesis.” There is no verifiable evidence, from Cardinals participating in the conclave or those observing it, that Siri ever was elected Pope, chose a papal name and accepted his election as Canons 109 and 219 require for the reception of universal jurisdiction and validity. There IS canonical proof that he was not elected and could not have been elected. White smoke does not necessarily an election make; there could be other explanations. Some authors name other possible “popes-elect,” and one of these scenarios rings far more true than the election of Siri. In a matter that is determined a dogmatic fact, one must have certitude. None is available concerning Siri’s election in the1958 election. If the Church demands it, and Her laws demonstrate that She does, then without it there is no pope-elect. All the Siri proponents have to go on is a conglomeration of shaky, circumstantial evidence that cannot be verified by anyone deemed trustworthy or admissible as a witness in an ecclesiastical court. It cannot and does not serve the same end as established law, far less Church teaching. This is pragmatic reasoning and it can scarcely be held of equal weight as deductive reasoning or the binding precepts of Canon Law.

• A problem presented to the thinking mind calls for an adjustment of the previous content of the mind to a new experience in a problem pondered…

The “new experience(s)” dredged up by the Siri crowd are the 1958 smoke, the alleged threat of nuclear attack if Siri accepted, the “Siri prisoner” theory, promises of new evidence, a new and earlier date of election which no one had previously reported, Siri’s appointment of Khoat and/or others as cardinals and even Khoat’s possible “appointment” as Pope. Any individual supporting the Siri thesis automatically confirms the event with his own acceptance and interpretation of the experience, an experience and perception related secondhand by supposedly credible “witnesses,” which amounts only to hearsay. Traditionalists must put aside all previous perceptions of the crisis in the Church to digest this nonsense. And yet the laws and teachings of the Church, the rules of evidence, the treachery of the cardinals electing Roncalli remain unchanged.

Experience is the true test of real existence…No item of experience ever can be verified definitely and irrevocably, only provisionally.

Siri supporters do not say this, but their reaction to those demanding solid evidence tells us that they presume what they have already presented as sufficient. Those who reportedly received leaks and “declassified documents” from the 1958 conclave — the cardinals voting, the testimony of certain secular “experts” speculating about the outcome of the conclave — only provide their intuition and experience concerning the whole affair. For a pragmatist, this is proof that what they want so badly to believe really happened actually did happen. The white soke really as a sign of Siri’s election, not a mistake. When Siri reportedly said he was bound by the secret this really did mean he was elected, not that he was, like any other cardinal, not allowed to reveal the internal workings of the conclave. (It would seem that a pope, however, would not be so bound.) But funny internal feelings (FIF) [1] and what amounts to hearsay reports from questionably Catholic individuals does not constitute the proof necessary to arrive at certitude. Once again, the truths of faith and Canon Law, not experience, comprise the golden standard.

Here we wish to propose a scenario of our own for the 1958 election based on dogmatic facts. If there were enough Freemasons to supply a majority to Roncalli, as Siri theorist Jim Condit claims, why did anyone bother to vote for Siri?  Why not Leger, Lienart, or others equally traitorous? A total of 51 Cardinals entered the Conclave, (for their names, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_in_Papal_conclave,_1958).  For the election to be valid, 35 Catholic cardinals were needed, (two-thirds plus one). If more than 16 already were heretics, hence deposed (and later events confirm the number to be far more than that), then the election was invalid on its face; Pope Pius XII’s election constitution Vacantis Apostolica Sedis requires the two-thirds plus one for validity. Let’s presume there were 35 Catholics and 16 non-Catholics in the conclave. We will suppose an election occurred on Sunday, October 26, 1958 when the white smoke reportedly appeared. For purposes of argument we will say that Siri was elected but the election was reversed by threat. Given that Siri received the requisite 35 votes, at least 19 Cardinals must have switched to Roncalli by October 28. This is a fair-sized number, although the actual turn of events can only remain conjecture, (for one vote tally scenario, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_1958. This chart, however, is short by one vote).

The 19 who retracted their votes to elect an antipope betrayed the fact that, according to Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the law now governing the treatment of heretics and schismatics, they most likely were heretics before their elevation to the cardinalate. We know Roncalli was a suspected modernist so could never have been a candidate for election. Once the college “elected” him, they were disqualified from electing anyone else owing to heresy or cooperation in heresy, according to Canon Law. And no claim of fear or duress can be taken seriously when one understands the solemn vow cardinals take on their creation to defend the Faith and the papacy with their blood, if need be. [2] These cardinals, including Siri, went on to fully support Roncalli and his successors and to sign the documents of the false Vatican 2 council. There can be no doubt that they ever swerved in their loyalty to the antipopes. And neither can there exist any doubt whatsoever that the initial support of Siri by these same men amounted, at the very least, to his questionably valid “election.” For to claim that election valid today would mean that we are relying on votes also cast almost simultaneously for an antichrist. Condit’s contention that “The Siri Thesis leaves the See of Rome intact, albeit in eclipse, in harmony with the conception and vision of all the Fathers of the Church, [3] and all the approved prophecies,” simply cannot and does not hold water. The Siri thesis is a fine piece of pragmatism that refuses to obey the laws of mathematics as well as Canon Law and the teachings of the Church. It would use the acceptance of heresy (Masonic threats) as the very foundation for its connection to Rome as long as their abominable Siri hypothesis is upheld.

• Individual interpretation of events and experience, intuition and sensistic feelings are the proper mode of judgment for this system, (modernism).

This wording is almost identical to that used by Pope St. Pius X to describe the Modernists. Siri theorists do not point to papal decrees or to the teachings of the ecumenical councils as proof that their conclusions are correct. They do not subject their theories to the rules expounded in Canon Law. They ignore the clear evidence that exists because their feelings and intuition, their experiences are more important than any of these. What they have done with the Siri theory is create a phantasmagoric conspiracy theory, not unlike the UFO theories, complete with death plots, threatened terroristic acts, unlawful detainment, doubles, secret codes, teenage “cardinals” and hidden rulers waiting in the wings to rush forward and save the day.  They have seasoned it with just enough Catholic sounding verbiage and private prophecy that those ignorant of how the Church really operates and what She actually teaches can be easily fooled. So many of these people are so used to their soap operatic, drama-filled lives and the conspiracy theories constantly hatched and retouched by those they trust as political and spiritual leaders that they have lost all touch with reality. Conspiracies there are, both political and religious, but they are called theories for a reason: no one can quite prove they are true. Most at best are suspect and the rest are simply a little more believable than the others.

If one can demonstrate that at least an attempt has been made to follow the rules of Scholastic philosophy, then certain conclusions can be drawn from this. For an opponent who cannot follow the rules of scholastic philosophy does not possess the proofs necessary to establish a defense. As the rule of law goes, facts are not presumed; they must be demonstrated. For years we have readily demonstrated the facts not from merely probable sources, but from unimpeachable sources. These infallible sources themselves cannot be questioned, as Rev. J. C. Fenton explained in his earlier quoted work. “Since the certitude of theology is from divine knowledge, it cannot be explained merely in function of the syllogistic process by which its conclusions are derived…Theological demonstration is a complex process, and the theological conclusion is not extrinsic to the body of actually revealed doctrine…The meaning of divine revelation, as it is proposed in the infallible magisterium of the Church, is so clear that demonstrations directed toward bringing out that meaning can possess a superior certitude…It was precisely the certitude of sacred theology that led to the unmasking of the various heresies which have appeared during the course of Christian history.”

He also includes Canon Law within the scope of scholastic theology, writing: “Canon Law is formulated by the Holy Father, by the Vicar of Christ on earth and by the ecumenical council, which is subject to and in communion with him…The teacher of Canon Law is able to indicate the actual direction given by the living and infallible Church,” (Concept of Sacred Theology). This is why, as Can. 1827, tells us, “He who has a presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof which is then shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed…the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” The presumption here is that a true Catholic can use only the means infallibly determined as authentic and reliable to judge whether truths really do issue from the Catholic faith. One who is not willing to faithfully abide by this method is not an obedient son or daughter of the Church.

Conclusion

One cannot determine the outcome of Church affairs, especially when they concern incidents of the gravest import to the stability and future of the Church, without employing the very method the Church has prescribed for resolving questions concerning truths of faith. The Church long ago condemned pragmatism as an heretical system of philosophy, identifying it, Rev. Pascal Parente says, as the philosophical system used by Lutherans. In his “Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology,” he writes: “Goodness and truth become something subjective, subordinated to the conviction of the individual and his experimental tests…Pragmatism is a radical denial of all revealed religion and makes God’s very existence conditioned by psychological experience.” The hair-brained Siri scheme, initially cooked up to sidetrack a deeper investigation of the bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and the restoration of the papacy and papal obedience, has been proven time and again to be fatally flawed in many of its aspects, even by nationally acclaimed publications. It is an embarrassment to the Catholic religion. More than that, it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the truth and a carefully laid trap to siphon off Catholics into yet another false papal election scheme. And yet the Siri founders told those who first supported their efforts they were pursuing their research to prevent that very thing from happening.

Some of us have been given the grace to see through these impostures and find the truth, thanks be to God. Pray that others are not seduced by these false prophets; or if held captive, are granted the grace and means to escape.

[1] See the work by the convert Arnold Lunn, Now I See, Ch. IX, “Facts Versus FIF”

[2] See The Siri File (now on the membership site) for more on the binding nature of this oath.

[3] All the Fathers have not foreseen this as Condit claims since St. Bernard, the last Father of the Church, definitely foresaw the seizing of the papal throne by Antichrist. And according to Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex…, the pope has defined Antichrist (the abomination of desolation) as one who will be a heretic elected to the See unbeknownst to the faithful. So if Siri supporters want to deny a papal definition of Holy Scripture, then they can cease worrying about a pope because they are outside the Church.